Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:What would Jimbo do?

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by JzG, the creator of the page. LordViD 22:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What would Jimbo do?

Conveniently, this page explains its own reasons for deletion. I don't know "What would Jesus do?" (which "WP:WWJD" is a bad pun of), but I can guesse "What would Jimbo do?". And my guess is, to delete this. --Rob 20:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Presents a POV as the Wikipedia equivalent of biblical truth. Jimbo is not Jesus. Nor any kind of infallible being. --Malthusian (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not what it's supposed to be saying. What I mean is this: sometimes when we are all sitting around arguing about process, Jimbo (or Tony Sidaway or someone) will come along, take one look and say "what has this got to do with building an encyclopaedia?" or some such, not an attempt at an appeal to authority. A bit like "what would Jesus do?" - it's an appeal ot view according to guiding priciples rather than slavinsh devotion to any given text. Obviously I wrote it badly. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed they do ask that question. And why should we assume that the answer they come up with is the right one? Or even that the question needed to be asked at all? I'm not saying that that's what you're thinking, but it's what the page appears to be saying. It has two basic problems: 1) it presents an ongoing issue as having been settled a particular way ('confrontational' userboxes are bad and are deleted, which is untrue) and 2) it presents the case as a silly childish squabble settled thanks to the intervention of a higher power, which undermines confidence in the idea of consensus. Again I'm not saying that's what you believe, but it's what the page implies. (What was the tendentious biography, by the way? This is another thing I don't like about the page - the fact that it comes to a startling conclusion yet deliberately avoids saying where it got it from). --Malthusian (talk) 22:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete This page was made purely so that User:JzG could link to it in Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Brian_Peppers and Talk:Brian_Peppers. --Bky1701 23:11, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it wasn't. It was made because a lot of what has been going on lately has precious little to do with writing an encyclopaedia (not that I can talk, since I've just spent half an hour reverting spam links instead of writing up the article I had promised myself I'd do). But I'm not putting up a fight, it's very plain that enough people have completely misinterpeted it, and those who haven't have pointed out other issues I failed to consider, that I'm happy to sit back and accept the inevitable. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Malthusian and Bky1701. I don't think Jimbo needs anyone to speak for him, and despite being a good person for creating Wikipedia, he is not infallible.--Aleron235 00:03, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not because that's what Jimbo would do (he would), but because this violates WP:POINT, and because it makes light of the real WWJD. Turnstep 00:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Jimbo is very special to us and we love him very much as the founder of wikipedia. but one of the policies of wilipedia is that every editor is equal and noone has a louder voice in decisions. and that includes Jimbo. we should all follow our own views of what is right not blindly follow what we think Jimbo would do. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- one of the policies of wilipedia is that every editor is equal and noone has a louder voice in decisions. and that includes Jimbo — False. Please read foundation issue number 5. Uncle G 21:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Malthusian and others. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 02:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Jimbo isn't God, and while WP:NOT censored, we don't need to include pages in project namespace that could be seriously offensive to members of some major religions. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! You're right there: Southern fundamentalists are a completely different religion from us Christians :-D - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 21:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apparently swimming against the tide Keep - Would it be better if it said "what would the perfect editor do"? The idea is a good one, even if Jimbo is not perfect. I don't see how this page harms the project and if it helps, even a little, that seems a Good thing. ++Lar: t/c 21:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.